Skip to main content
3:00 am
>> this week, democrats, a dismal election for at the president and his party. and just how deep is the split between party moderates and conservatives going into next year's mid-terms, and congress extends unemployment benefits for 20 more weeks, the unemployment rate is a stunning 10.2%. where are those stimulus jobs? >> from my perspective, we won last night. we had one race we were engaged in in new york, a republican held the seat since the civil war, and we won that seat. >> welcome to "journal editorial report". that was nancy pelosi putting a
3:01 am
positive spin on tuesday's election results, despite bruising losses in the governor races races in virginia and new jersey. democrats pulled out a victory in the 23rd strict district in new york. and bill owens won a seat. the republican was forced out of the race days before the election. they gave nancy pelosi one more vote. earlier i spoke to the club's pratt and asked them if it was a mistake to get involved. >> i don't think it was a mistake at all. from a policy standpoint, conservatives lost nothing. both bill owens would have voted the same way if they were elected to the house. so getting doug hoffman in the
3:02 am
position where he was competitive was worth the effort and worth the fight. in the end, we had a -- john corp corn insaid the hison he learn was that competitive primaries are a good thing. when the party leaders tell the voters what the ought to like and not give them the chance to weigh in, it's big mistake. so this is a lesson that was learned by the party leaders, and it was good investment. >> no question the republican was nominated in the back room by new york state elites. the ultimate outcome here is that nancy pelosi has one more vote for obama care and it's going to be a very close vote. so wasn't that counterproductive? >> well, he was not a mod a -- a
3:03 am
moderate republican. more than likely to vote for obama-care. if we sat on the sidelines and did nothing, that vote would have been there regardless. so i think we changed the landscape and engaged in a debate and had a fight worth having, and i think it's going to have an impact on future elections in 2010. >> a lot of the democrats are saying this is typical of what is happening in the republican party, the civil war, grassroots, conservatives, who are running against republican moderates, even? districts where conservatives will have a hard time winning. is that the kind of fight we will see in 2010 among republicans. >> it's an example of the civil war in the republican party is a bit of a sore argue: there is only one real republican in the rays, and -- race, and that was
3:04 am
doug hoffman. i don't think it's a great example to say there's this struggle within the republican party. i do think the lesson about competitive primaries is important. there are some examples of that possibly coming up in the future, say insuring florida in the primary. but i don't think that new york 23 was a great example to come to that conclusion. >> what kind of criteria do you use in whether to support a candidate, and many bad votes or issues could do youive somebody -- mark kirk, congressman from illinois, running for senate in illinois. somebody -- a lot of republicans said he couldn't win illinois. he got a bad vote i suspect on cap and trade. would that disqualify him from the club for growth endorsement? >> that probably disqualifies
3:05 am
senator kirk for an endorsement of the club for growth. we have criteria, and a very disciplined process, that we lock at candidates that are viable, that can win in the districts they're running in. we like to see sometimes a distinction between candidates where we think that we need to get involved to help somebody to be able to support progrowth policies. we run a campaign, and economic freedom is our own candidate. we strictly support economic issues, and, paul, we think that some of the electorate believes in limited government, and is tolerant on social issues, and we don't think that things like personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, are fringe issues. they're broad-based, so those candidates say they support free-market solutions, they think taxpayers spend their money better than anybody else,
3:06 am
and we think those are pretty broad-based issues with wide appeal. >> if you have a senate race that you have somebody who is moderately conservative versus a clear democratic liberal, are you growing to support that candidate? because some people say in pennsylvania -- think the club for growth helped to drive arlen specter out of the party, and it's going to be hard to fill -- fill -- filibuster obama care. >> you look at some of the races we have gotten involved in, arlen specter, they all have one thing in common. they all defected to the democrat party, and we take solace in saying they are the things we said they are. they're not moderate republicans. they're people on the far left that vote with the democrats,
3:07 am
and they defect to the democrat part, as soon as they're called on the issue. we're looking for conservatives we can support that we think a wide base of americans can support as well. >> thanks for being here. >> thanks paul. >> when we come back, the republican party split and the 2000 mid-term elections. just how deep is the divide between moderates and cifers, and is florida the next front in the so-called civil war?
3:08 am
3:09 am
>> what you saw was i think the future of the -- the near-term future of the republican party, a civil war in which the right wing ran some people out of the
3:10 am
party. >> that was senior white house adviser david axlerod, putting his own spin on the new york congressional race and the split between moderates and conservatives in the republican party. is florida the next front in this intraparty fight? joining the panel, dan, jason, and kim strassel. jason, you heard axlerod and chris, very different takes. how serious is the rift in the g.o.p. >> axlerod is overstating the case but there's an issue, tissuely the road to the majority or back to majority is independent voters. if you have to bring those voters that left for obama back into the republican fold, this could become an issue. targeting moderates makes perfect sense when you're in the majority and you want the votes to pass major pieces of
3:11 am
legislation, but it makes less sense when you're in the minority trying to stop things. the timing of the purification of the republican party might be a little off here. you want people of conviction, sure, and you want coalition builders. >> i think what is going on is very healthy. the republican party at this point in time does not have a coherent set of ideas. they didn't have it coming out of the bush president si, and the mccain -- >> particularly on the size of government. >> exactly. i think what is going on in places like new york 23 is a very healthy discussion. i mean, our favorite things is james madison federalist 10, and there's a reason why parties have debates internally so we don't split off into smaller parties and that's what is going on. >> it's fascinating that bob
3:12 am
mcdonald's that won the race in virginia, he stressed the jobs and economy and taxes and transportation, and he was able to unite his party. why could he do that in virginia and new york blew up? >> because the republicans are learning a lesson here, which is what you just describe. there's no question bob mcdonald is a real conservative. he didn't run a divisive campaign. he came out, didn't talk about social and cultural issues. he got to the mainstream bread and butter economic questions that matter right now. now, the difference between new york is that what happened in -- this is not really relevant to this bigger discussion of the civil war. as chris said, you had what was a very liberal, if you want to call it, republican, and you didn't have a primary, you didn't have a discussion about this among the base. what you basically have is being chosen in a back room and then a conservative candidate running
3:13 am
against her, who later became a cause for some activists out there this was, as dan said, a healthy discussion, and there's a big difference between that fight up there and the campaign in virginia where you had a socially conservative going out there and talking about what people care about. >> that wasn't the only conservative who won on tuesday. chris christi is a social conservative. he won in new jersey. it's also interesting that both of those victories by mcdonald and christi asked sarah palin not to campaign for them. tone matters here. and in new york 23, where one candidate stepped out in favor of owens who watt. hoffman got the vote from some of the more populist members of the republican party.
3:14 am
>> well, take connecticut, rock simmons lost his congressional seat in 2006, may run against chris dodd again. he is not a powerful social conservative. is the party going to be able to unite against somebody like chris dodd, who is very vulnerable? >> you know, connecticut is a moderate to liberal state. you have to make a choice there whether you're going to win on fall on your sward. -- sword. i thought it was interesting in new york. a republican win in obama's home state would be devastating. i would would be self-destructive to follow -- fall on your sword, yankee speaking of healthy -- crist is being challenged in the senate.
3:15 am
so you think this brawl in the g.o.p. is a good, healthy thing? >> yeah in part because not all of these primaries are created equal. we're talking about mark kirk, and dan said this is more of a moderate to liberal state, and you have to pick a candidate that you know can rein, and running a superhard conservative there may not win. but mark rubio, who is challenging charlie crist, was the already-proven leader of the florida house. he comes out of the jeb bush mold, who was a very successful governor, and he is challenging a guy that has made a lot of conservatives unhappy. charlie christsupported obama and i think that's a healthy discussion and debate. >> let's shift gears to the democrats. one of the big lessons is the emerging split among democrats
3:16 am
between those who are blue dogs, moderates who want a republican leaning districts to give democrats the majority, and the agenda that is being pushed. there's some doubts about the agenda. >> this is the double-edged shroud, you build your caucus and this a much less disciplined caucus. some of at the blue dogs, they recruited jim webb, mccass excel, these are in swing states, a con -- con shen -- conscientious effort to get them. >> congress extends up employment benefits as the jobless rate reached double-digits. where are those new jobs? ííí
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
>> unemployment hit double-digits in october, climbing to a stunning 10.2%. the bad news came the same day that president obama signed a bill giving out of work americans 20 more weeks of benefits, and extends until april 30th the tack credit -- tax credit for first, time home buyers. we're back, and joining us is james freeman. james, you have been looking at the details of this jobs report. are the details any more reassuring perhaps? >> not really. the reason this number was surprising to economists, kind of scary, is that there's some other good news in the economy and you thought jobs would rebound. corporate profits are up, growth is up, productivity serged.
3:21 am
this is the opinion in the cycle where you expect better. it's really close to 20% if you count people who have given up working or are working part time. it's basically there's something dragging the jobs down, and i think you have to say it's the fear factor obama edition of what is going on in washington. >> for the future, there's one number i focus on, the average jobs worked in a week. it's 33 when a normal week is 40. that tells me you're going to have maybe a ways to go before people start to hire new people at 40 hours a week, because they make the work week go out. people are working part time, temporary, and the job growth may be a while yet in coming. >> that's right. and i take issue with just one thing james said, which was that they have been cutting jobs to the bone.
3:22 am
i think they're cullly cutting into the -- actuallycutting into the bone. they're getting more work out of tell the people they got. and johnson & johnson announced they're laying off 7% of their work force. it's a healthy company. if johnson & johnson is laying people off, there's a lot 0 more marginal companies doing the same thing. >> the panic in democrats is going to be palpable. they promised when they passed the stimulus, you could deep the jobless rate below 8%, below 8%. now it's 2.2 percentage points higher than that. so they're scrambling now with unemployment benefits. what else is in the policy hamper here? >> well, that's absolutely right. we were just talking about the virginia election. here i a guy -- here is a guy
3:23 am
who won 60% of the state by talking about the need to create jobs. not all the stuff in washington about healthcare and climate change. they're a growing feel that democrats are more interested in growing government than growing job. you saw the unemployment extension, and the extension of the tax credit for first, time home buyers to give. the cover. they're stuck in the middle of the health care debait and they can't do anything until it gets finished. and the public is saying, what have you done for us lately? >> the definition of economic insanity. 5.4% surcharge on small businesses that create jobs with a 10.2 unemployment rate, and that surcharge is in the house healthcare bill. >> you know, looking at this, the glass is half full.
3:24 am
if they would just stop the insanity, there are people eager to hire. i mean, we're getting even good news from our retailers, starbucks is getting more bullish. this is the ultimate discretionary purchase so all washington has to do is say, we're not going over the deliver health care and cap and trade. >> if they just stopped the agenda, your employer would say, i know what my costs will be per person i hire. i'm willing now to hire somebody. >> the left is going to insist they came going with the healthcare bill. i think there may be a tipping pound here. a lot of democrats are getting nervous. senator jay rockefeller of west virginia, card-carrying liberal if ever there was one, said this week, i don't think the people in my start are going to start cheering over copenhagen, the climate change conference in december. people are concerned about jobs
3:25 am
when democrats start talking like this, they have a problem with healthcare. >> some democrats are talking about a tax credit and giving employers a certain amount of each new higher. it was tried in the 70s, and jimmy carter abandoned it. >> they're looking for something they can do to say they passed and hopefully not also call it stimulus, whichs starting to back dirty word. one of the problems it got even some tepid republican support. you saw the unemployment benefits that war passed this week, and the home tax credit, and the support, they flew through, which suggests the republicans are worryied. they're getting -- running out of stuff they can actually propose, and one of the problems is they stopped doing thissingts
3:26 am
that make the economy worse. >> call the whole thing off. we have to take one more break. when we come back, our hits and misses.
3:27 am
3:28 am
>> time now for hits and misses of the week. >> well, derek jeter may have won the world series but he struck out laos last year when he said he owed them money. julian robinson won against the new york taxing authority, saving himself $23 million. this is a victory for every working joe who has to take it in the neck for high taxes. >> another hit for a millionaire. warren buffet purchased a railroad that specializes in transporting goal.
3:29 am
people are saying that solar and wind power is about to displace coal. >> no hit for billionaires, but the ford motor company, government financing free, t.a.r.p. free, a great quarter, made almost a billion dollars, and made their financing arm, in particular, made half a billion dollars. shows you can buy build, buy and sell cars without the government. >> this is "journal editorial report". we hope to see you all right here next week. credit
3:30 am
>> on fox news watch, it's been one year since barack obama was elected. the press was cheering then. are they cheering you? with a shortage of major accomplishment, is it gone, voters tossed out the old and welcomed the new. did the media use the news to target the leading party? karzai retains his role in afghanistan. in the war on religion, a top church leader fires a shot at the "new york times", and could the chilly relationship between the white house and fox news be warming? >> on the panel this week, can kirsten powers, and jim, and news day columnist, alex. i'm jon scott.
3:31 am
fox news watch is on right now. >> a year ago today barack obama was elected president. it's been a year. a lot happened. in one short year, obama's slogan has gone from, yes, we can, to, wow, this is freaking hard. >> it's been a year since barack obama was elected president of the united states. but jokes aside, what's the serious media think of mr. obama one year lateer? from "the new york times", no walk in the park for obama one year later, it's the slog of governance. >> change has come, or has it? and from cnn, months into the presidency, promise of change is a slow go. jim, the late night comics are having fun.
3:32 am
what about the mainstream mid-yaw, are they in awe? >> i think they're still glad he defeated mccain and they look forward to voting for him in 2012. the media narrative is that obama is a good guy, but the right wing is just so powerful so mean so hateful, so michelle bachanizeed that obama is having a hard time, which plays into what democrats think, victimology. >> is the narrative going to change on us with the new unemployment numbers we got yesterday, 10.2%? >> that's just a little more of the same. it's inevitable that the poetry of politics gives way to the prose of government. this stuff is hard, taking on health care and wars and 60 other things. it's absolutely inevitable it ain't quite as much fun anymore. >> speeches have been his favorite way to approach the problems hey -- he has had.
3:33 am
have a problem, give a speech. doesn't seem to be working. >> what goes up must come down and that's the case with the media. you could have predicted -- i think no matter what happened they were going become critical of him, and i would say during this period that they have actually been pretty dead on, and you look at the coverage, i don't see the coverage that jim is talking about. i think for the most part they have said that obama is having a hard time, that it it's a difficult environment, and that's the facts. >> what about a couple of the being decisions the president has promised closing gitmo didn't seem to be easy as he thought it would be, and we still don't have the afghan afghanistan policy. >> not to mention don't ask, don't tell, military tribunals in the garbage. >> is the press pressing for answers in. >> i think the press, the mantra
3:34 am
they're going with, the change is coming but it's a little slow. i think that's a little sanguine. the change hays come -- has come in huge and sweeping ways. the expansion of government, dismantling of the central intelligence agency. these are huge changes that most people in the mainstream press are reluctant talk about. >> the big story is the swine flu vaccine. as the -- they only have 25 million doses, an 85% shortfall. shouldn't jut be the "washington times" raise that asen -- as a sign of governmental malpractice. >> it's either too much change or not enough change. the media say, we may love you but we're not going love you forever, and the attention span is shorter than ever. >> what about the healthcare dewait and the tea party
3:35 am
coverage. did did that change the way that president obama i viewed by the media? >> winning tends to move people -- tends to move the media with you. the fact he has been up against the head wind with health care has made people look at him critically, i think on the tea party issue, the media missed the story. it was downplayed, and i count myself as one of them pool that -- people that saw it as a fringe thing. >> it looked that way. >> it is actually have something influence. remains to be seen our great the influence is, but it's a real phenomenon. >> we shouldn't let the week go by without taking note of the most important media event of all, the tv show "v" on abc with this smooth-talking, multi
3:36 am
racial person coming from outer space to give us free healthcare, and you have to keep watching to discover what it's really look. >> we take a break, but we have a lot of extras available to you on the web site, including discussions that erupt in here. during our break, you can comment to the show. we will talk about tuesday night's election results and a how they were covered. >> an off-year election delivers big wins for the g.o.p., and chance for the mainstream media to pull apart the party. could the icy white house be warming to fox news? details next on "news watch."
3:37 am
3:38 am
two big wins for republic grabs two states bogey bogey bogey carried last year --
3:39 am
barack obama carried last year. many the mainstream media used the election results as an opportunity to drive a wedge in the republican party with talk of a civil war among conservatives. why do these races get so much coverage, jim? offyear elections normally don't get that kind of attention. >> i think even reporters who like obama have to acknowledge the parallels between 2009 and 1993 are just so overwhelming and of course '93 led to the big '94 takeovers of the republicans in congress, and i think, we're seeing history repeat itself. >> i know you're on twitter. there was an interesting tweet from mike murphy who was a gu guest. msnbc even more unwatchable than usual tonight. mistake to ever let oberman oates -- host election night.
3:40 am
>> i'm happy to see someone else post those things instead of me. >> the one jim just gave on the governor's race and the fight in the republican party. from the media point of view, they're both self-interested analysis for one point of view. >> the take of the media on the civil war of the republicans, once the two governors in new jersey and virginia were going to be going republican, they focused their attention on the fact that republicans have huge intraparty squabbles. >> that new york 23 race was very convenient once it looked like new jersey and virginia were going republican. that was surprising. like you said, these are states that obama carried, states that go democrat, and obama
3:41 am
campaigned heavily for both of them. very convenient to focus on 23 and the drama, they reality-show drama of one lieuing and -- losing and backing the democrat, interesting young new conservative face. it was interesting story, but frankly, i don't see either the conservative race -- the new york 23 race or the gubernatorial races having huge implications either way. i think the press made beth of those to us be a much bigger deal. >> what's your take? >> that is exactly what i was going to say. it's the media who overplays things and make things into news. it wasn't a referendum on obama, and it was essentially -- it was essentially informative, interesting, i can tell you a few things. you look -- look at what the independents are doing but it's
3:42 am
not predictive of what is going happen in the future. i doesn't tell you anything definitive. >> not a referendum on obama? >> i think it was. whether obama chooses to change like clinton did and trying to get re-elected, that is a question that, again, historically minded reporters will be chewing on. certainly -- ask creigh degrees whether obama being president made a difference. >> it told us the economy was the number one issue. it isn't healthcare, health care isn't so much an issue at that level, but the economy is what people are worried about. that's what it told us. when those states went to the other party when george bush was in power, nobody said it was a referendum on george bush. >> aren't we being suckers if we
3:43 am
buy too closely into that theory? it's so obviously to promote one political view or another. the media say, obama might have had a little to do with it and there's something interesting going on inside the republican party between the moderates and conservatives. >> reporters are supposed to identify and put things in historical cop -- context. because the virginia election, the went -- they're reacting against who is in the white house. >> we heard from robert gibbs on wednesday. he said the president wasn't really paying attention help was watching the hbo documentary -- >> i'm sorry -- >> one thing you couldn't pull him away from, election returns. >> the spin job was laughable. that's what you have to do in
3:44 am
politics. it's not predictive. and, two, people are thinking about, to jolt joe bid den, a three letter word, j-o-b-s, and the joblessness number that came out was a big deal. >> the exact same spin that ari fleisher did. >> cookie cutter. >> the white house came up with. >> should we be skeptical? >> talking about the jobs number, though, this administration came out and said we're going to hold unemployment to 8% because we have this massive stimulus plan. we're looking at -- >> are the media making enough of that? >> no. it's a legitimate story, obama said some thankful he -- some
3:45 am
things he now regets. that's how politics work. it's messy and sticky. >> i was in the reagan white house during when unemployment went over 10%, and every night it was reagan is hoover. tip o'neill said that reagan was, quote, evil, and the media were all too happy to agree, and it was like the next great depression, and people now are saying leading indicators are up, secondary measures to prove an optimistic case. >> you said reagan went to bed early and didn't see the numbers. right? is that the white house putting out spin that reporters are picking up on or reporters not doing their jobs? >> i think it's reporters not wanting to look at the bad side of the obama presidency. >> time for another break. if you come across a story that smacks to you of media bias, e-mail us. we will be tack to walk about
3:46 am
new york's top catholic taking on "the new york times", and much more. >> we must never forget, this is not a war of choice. this is a war of necessity. >> has the war of necessity turned into something else? and what is the press saying about this guy. and the war on religion takes another turn, when the new york arch bishop fires back at the "new york times". all next on "news watch". ♪ hello hello hello can anybody hear me? ♪ ♪ i know i know i know i shoulda gone to ♪ ♪ free credit report dot com! ♪ that's where i shoulda gone! coulda got my knowledge on! ♪ ♪ vo: free credit score and report with enrollment in triple advantage.
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
>> afghanistan, back in the headlines this week after the country's former foreign minister abdullah an -- abdullah saying he was pulling out. that left karzai as the de facto
3:50 am
winner, and raises more questions about our afghanistan strategy. here's some of the headlines that caught our eye. from the "los angeles times", karzai gets a warning from the u.s. from the "new jersey star ledger" karzai win ramps up pressure on obama. from the "washington post," karzai is wild card for u.s. strategy. >> what about those headlines, segue any -- signify the media are interested in a -- >> it's a mess. there's a little hip popping up. >> after eight years are the media tired of write about afghanistan? >> i think the american people would like an answer, don't want it to go on forever. i don't see honestly much more than just frustration and a short attention span. >> he used the vietnam word again, jim. >> it is hard to find a pundit who is not on the u.s.
3:51 am
government payroll who thinks what we are doing in afghanistan is a good idea and will work out well. it is sort of like vietnam, and the intelligence doesn't think that the johnson administration or the nixon administration back then is handling it well now, and they don't think obama is handling it now. >> he announced in march he was bringing out a new strategy, and it was a final strategy. i was the be-all-end-all. now we're back to thinking all over again. are the media passengers -- passenger enough angst to this process? >> there's a question about what is taking so long. why did he appoint this general and not following up. i think the questions have been asked, and the answer is that conditions on he ground are different than when he was come paining. depressant -- i don't know why he gave that speech if he wasn't ready to follow through on it. but at it is a valid question,
3:52 am
why are we in afghanistan? they have to figure out if they want to continue in this direction or pull the plug. >> in the war, the enemy has a vote, and the enemy is reading the coverage. >> it's important we stay and at least leave with some kind of victory. it doesn't have to be this big hurrah, but the state of hesitancy on the part of obama is making everyone worried, and his loyalists are now worried beside beside -- about his legacy. >> looks like lawmakers are getting closer to strengthening protection for journalists who don't want to reveal their confidential sources. it looked like the administration was going to block that administration but looks to have changed. the report is:
3:53 am
>> do journalists need a shield law? >> you bet we do. its inevitable, sadly, that politics on both party resist this. >> should we take on face value, jim, what we're hearing from the obama administration? >> that they're desperately trying to keep the pentagon happy on one side and the media happy. we should absolutely believe they're paralyzed about making somebody mad at them. >> move on to our next topic. october 24th, "new york times" columnist maureen dowd wrote about an investigation by the vatican into women's religious orders in the united states. here's what she wrote:
3:54 am
>> those words didn't sit too well with new york archbishop timothy dolan. he tried to send an oap ed piece to the "the new york times". here's what he wrote. in a: >> what do you make of this? >> i have to be perfectly honest. i spent the last six months researching this book, and he is just scratching the surface. it's not just "the new york times", which regularly secures those catholics and sort of the
3:55 am
general population and the church, and the whole of christianity. it's news week, it's msnbc, the huffington post. christians have become the new acceptable target, and i'm glad that someone from the church is finally standing up and saying, this is not right. this isn't fair. >> what about that? >> i think that the liberal media tends to -- i don't know if i would call it an attack on christianity. more often ignorance. sometimes the snobbiness, they think it's stupid and look down on its. in the conservative media i often encounter the exact same thing towards muslims. so i feel like it's religion in general and it depends where you're coming from. >> we have to take one more break. when we come back, a media mystery. >> who is that? could it be -- find out next on
3:56 am
"news watch". 
3:57 am
3:58 am
>> it has been an astowngdz week -- astounding week in washington. there were pigs with wings flying above washington. the vocal campaign to freezes out fox news. david axlerod spoke with our own major garrett about the election results on tuesday. >> the new york 23 race was the one race that was really a microcosm of the national debate. the other race in new jersey and in virginia were really state races, very much focused on state issues, in jersey, focused on governor corzine, in new york 23, the issues were on the ballot that we're discussing in washington. >> a couple of weeks ago the
3:59 am
white house was talking about denying access to its top people like david axlerod to fox news. >> they're threatening them for going on fox. and fox had four million viewers, which is 60% more than msnbc and cnn together so they go to fox as well. >> is the white house calling you? >> kiss and make up. don't have any problems with the white house. they're very helpful for me. i saw that story, and it's a little improbable actually. i find it hard to believe. >> they should come on. how hard could it be? >> all rightment we love having you. that's a wrap on "news watch". thanks to everybody.

FOX Report
FOX News November 8, 2009 3:00am-4:00am EST


TOPIC FREQUENCY New York 13, Virginia 9, Afghanistan 7, Washington 7, Jim 5, Florida 4, New Jersey 3, Illinois 3, Nancy Pelosi 3, Msnbc 3, Doug Hoffman 2, Mark Kirk 2, Owens 2, Chris Dodd 2, Abdullah 2, Bob Mcdonald 2, Johnson 2, Vietnam 2, Mccain 1, Michelle Bachanizeed 1
Network FOX News
Duration 01:00:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 8/3/2011